I have received PMs from many people, some people saying "this subverse is shit, everything posted is editorialised/biased/political/blah blah blah/etc.", some saying "why was my submission about blah blah blah, etc. that was science related removed", and we've seen lately in the comments sections of some posts users complaining about inactive moderation.

This requires resolution. Please leave feedback below. Rules in italics are a work in progress and require feedback

Global Policy

All Voat rules apply.

Submission PolicyWe will be removing articles that are misleading, editorialised, or not science.*
* Titles should try to summarise what is in the article.
* Science memes or jokes are not suitable content for this subverse, and will be removed.
* Pseudoscience is not allowed.†

† A definition of pseudoscience is needed. I have one written down somewhere, I'll add it when I find it.

Comment Policy

[1] Spamming is prohibited. This includes advertising, or simply posting nonsense.

[2] Self-promotion must be strictly relevant to the topic of the submission, or strictly relevant to the comment thread and also somewhat relevant to the submission.

[3] Self promotion must be clearly labeled as self promotion.

[4] All comments should be somewhat relevant to the topic at hand. This is aimed at stopping spam, and is specified to make clear that offtopic comments are included in our definition of spam.

~~Do not attack other users. v/science is a forum for open discussion, not a forum assaulting/aggravating other users. There are plenty of subverses where you can attack other users, but v/science is not one of them.~~ Struck down because kevdude is a cheeki kid and also because some people came and brigaded (which is absolutely haraam, go away). replaced with [5]

[5] Using loopholes for these rules are forbidden and we reserve the right to remove comments that attempt to find ways around the rules. Please report any loopholes you may find and ask if you are unsure.

[6] With the exception of excessive spam waves††† (see also: Amalek, robots, etc.), you will be informed if your comment is removed and which rule(s) it breaks.

†† An actual definition: If you make excessive Amalek-style posts (multiple short replies to one comment/thread or just generally low substance posts all over the place), are obviously advertising/astroturfing/etc., or repeatedly break the exact same rule in a short timeframe.

To apply to be a moderator, please fill in the following form:

**Username:**
**Why I want to be a mod:**
**Account age:**
**Previous moderator experience, if any:**
**Timezone in UTC/GMT:**
**When are you able to moderate:**††
**Summary of political beliefs:**†
† This is so we don't end up appointing everyone from a single political viewpoint, thus reducing bias.
A one word answer is allowed, and this is the only field besides previous experience that is not compulsory.
†† Times can be in your own timezone.

You should leave your application in the comments below, as PMs are a clunky system, and I believe all moderator applications should be seen.

Do not attack other users. v/science is a forum for open discussion, not a forum assaulting/aggravating other users. There are plenty of subverses where you can attack other users, but v/science is not one of them.

Is this @mathgrunt's proposed rule that will enable him to nanny the comments? Seriously, what does "aggravate" mean? Look, you are setting standards for posting and in a science sub that makes sense. But you are not here to be the comment police. If users want to argue in the threads that is their business. Moderate spam and otherwise stay out of it.